Pimping climate change: Richard Branson, global warming, Scott Prudham

Environment and Planning A 2009, volume 41, pages 1594 ^ 1613
doi:10.1068/a4071
Pimping climate change: Richard Branson, global warming,
and the performance of green capitalism
Scott Prudham
Department of Geography and Centre for Environment, University of Toronto, Toronto,
ON M5S 3G3, Canada; e-mail: [email protected]
Received 22 March 2007; in revised form 24 July 2008; published online 6 April 2009
Abstract. On 21 September 2006 UK u«ber-entrepreneur and Virgin Group Chairman Richard Branson
pledged approximately »1.6 billion, the equivalent of all the profits from Virgin Atlantic and Virgin
Trains for the next ten years, to fighting climate change. Since then, Branson has restated his
commitment to action on global warming, including investment in technologies for sequestering
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. In this paper, I critically examine and engage with Branson's
announcements as a specific entre¨e into a dialog about so-called `green capitalism'. I am particularly
interested in the role of the entrepreneurial subject in environmental policy and environmental action.
There are glaring problems associated with green capitalism as a mash-up of environmentalism with
capitalism. One of these is the tethering of environmentalism to a political economy whose mantra is
growth for growth's sake, or, in Marx's terms, accumulation for accumulation's sake. This has been
discussed by some as the problem of capitalism's ecological metabolism or `metabolic rift'. Yet, while
accumulation for accumulation's sake may well be anathema to progressive environmentalism and
sustainability, I argue that this is not only an objective, quantitative problem but also one of the
qualitative dimensions of produced nature and the cultural politics of environmentalism. Appreciation
of this can be gleaned by reexamining Marx's discussion of the role of the bourgeois subject in the
relentless drive to reproduce and expand capital accumulation via anarchic, entrepreneurial investment. Green capitalist orthodoxy relies on this source of innovative dynamism, but in the process
obscures or overlooks the fact that accumulation for accumulation's sake is by definition guided by
the anarchic and amoral search for profitable realization of surplus value. Moreover, in order for
green capitalism to succeed, its legitimacy must be secured. I argue that this legitimacy derives in part
from specific performances of green capitalism by entrepreneurial elites, also made evident by
Branson and his commitments to climate action. All of this raises questions about the political,
cultural, and ecological character of green capitalism, issues brought to the fore by Branson's brand
of climate activism.
Introduction and overview
On 21 September 2006 Virgin Group Chairman and UK celebrity entrepreneur
Richard Branson pledged to divert all the profits from Virgin Atlantic and Virgin
Trains for the subsequent ten years (worth an estimated »1.6 billion) to ``fight global
warming'' (see BBC News 2006; The Guardian 2007). The announcementöshepherded
by former US President Bill Clintonöwas made in Washington DC and garnered
considerable interest from the international media. It was followed by a 10 February
2007 commitment of »12.8 million (then worth about US $25 million) to the sequestration of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere for deep geological storage. These
initiatives arrived amid signs that public awareness about global warming and willingness to act are growing in the Anglo-American world. Rising public consciousness
and engagement have been particularly evident in the UK of late. In this context, one
facet of the growing profile of climate change as a decidedly public policy challenge is
the proliferation of political and entertainment industry elites who have championed
action to abate and offset anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions.
Branson, through his relentless self-promotion and attention-seeking (and getting!)
ways, undoubtedly belongs in the pantheon of contemporary Anglo-American cultural
elites. At the same time he represents something else. Branson's fame is primarily
Pimping climate change
1595
based on his status as the quintessential post-Thatcher entrepreneur. He is a `model'
post-Keynesian entrepreneurial subject in a neoliberalized economy of opportunity,
particularly but by no means only iconic in the UK. Branson is thus a rare example
of the business elite with a large climate footprint who has embraced action to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. But, in addition, Branson's announcements also suggest
a synthesis or fusion between celebrity entrepreneurialism, on the one hand, and
climate change policy, on the other. This fusion in the context of climate politics
and policy is a specific thrust in the wider movement toward so-called `green capitalism': a set of responses to environmental change and environmentalism that relies on
harnessing capital investment, individual choice, and entrepreneurial innovation to
the green cause. No environmental challenge is now more salient, and thus no item
on the green capitalism agenda is more important, than global warming. In the words
of prominent green capitalism advocate and President of the Environmental Defense
Fund Fred Krupp, ``We've put Earth at the brink of climate calamity, thanks to rapid
industrialization and market forces. That's part one. The sequel is how we get out of
this fix. I believe it's those same forces, innovation and profitöand nothing elseöthat
can stop global warming'' (Griscom Little, 2008).
There is every possibility that Branson's championing of action on climate change
will deepen commitments to meaningful attempts to abate greenhouse gas emissions,
and also bolster efforts to redress the expected impacts of climate change. This is
important. Global warming and its expected impacts constitute a serious issue, with
potentially catastrophic implications for the poorest people of the world (Parks and
Roberts, 2006; Roberts, 2001). Nevertheless, this paper is a critique of Branson's
announcements and the notion that they are somehow a `good thing'. I seek to add
to an emerging critical literature on the role of cultural elites in the fight over climate
change (eg Boykoff and Goodman, 2008; Gajda and Kieffer, 2007). However, my
focus is specifically on the elite bourgeois subject as a subset of the phenomenon.
Drawing on Branson's example, I interrogate the would-be `green capitalist' in order to
elucidate some aspects of and challenges to this particular brand of elite-led action in
the climate policy arena, issues that, in turn, speak to the central but somewhat
overlooked role of the entrepreneurial subject in the political and cultural logic of
green capitalism more broadly.
The paper features two interrelated arguments. First, Branson's announcements
(particularly the first one) point to a central contradiction in the green capitalist
agenda. This agenda pivots in large measure on the problematic suggestion that more
sustainable futures can be secured via capitalist investment and entrepreneurial innovation. Whatever truth there may be in particular cases, this obscures the relentless,
restless, and growth-dependent character of capitalism's distinct metabolism, an argument most closely associated with the work of Bellamy Foster (Clark and York, 2005;
Foster, 2000), but which draws in turn on Karl Marx. The metabolism critique rightfully identifies a tendency in capitalist political economies for aggregate throughput of
material and energy to grow, outstripping any efficiency gains (ie the so-called `Jevons
paradox'). But accumulation for accumulation's sake also entails dynamic confrontation, transformation, and redefinition of material, social, and cultural conditions in
ways that confound coherent articulation of any notion of fixed `limits' (including
ecological ones) to continued expansion. This essentially qualitative problem originates
in the microeconomics of the entrepreneurial subject who is compelled to accumulate
on an expanded scale if only to reproduce himself or herself. What results is a systemic
logic of the production of new naturesöintegrally connected to the production of
space and uneven development more generally (Smith, 2008 [1984]) ö by the anarchic,
restless drive to accumulate capital as an end in and of itself. Thus, I argue that,
1596
S Prudham
when thinking of capitalism's so-called `biospheric rift' (Clark and York, 2005), it is
crucial to attend not only to quantities of aggregate material and energy throughput,
but also to issues of quality.
Secondly, focus on the elite entrepreneurial or bourgeois subject points to the need
for a politico-cultural perspective on green capitalism as a sort of `drama' which must
be performed. That is, the viability of green capitalism is not only an `objective'
question of whether or not entrepreneurial energy, unleashed by neoliberalized green
markets, can give rise to sustainable technoeconomic trajectories. Rather, it is also a
political agenda whose viability turns on whether or not capitalism and environmentalism are seenösubjectivelyöto be compatible. Seen in this way, green capitalism has
interwoven material ^ semiotic dimensions (Haraway, 1997), one central facet of which
is the `performance' of the entrepreneurial subject as environmental crusader. Performances such as Branson's not only stage the political and cultural fusion of capitalism
and environmentalism as green capitalism; they also act to augment the economic
foundations of bourgeois power by making the entrepreneur a central figure in climate
policy, and, by extension, environmentalism.
In what follows, I elaborate on these arguments in succession. I then close by
considering explicitly the political dilemma posed by specifically entrepreneurial
elites as champions of action on climate change, and of environmentalism more
generally. If the legitimacy of green capitalism turns on the kinds of performances
offered by Branson in these announcements then it bears reminding ourselves that
Branson can lay little claim to political legitimacy. This may seem obvious, but it is
not unrelated to the issue of elites more generally embracing action on climate
change; however welcome in some respects this may be, some consideration needs to
be given to the degree to which the resulting fusions of disparate cultural and political
agendas not only redress the climate problem but also sustain and enhance elite (in this
case entrepreneurial) status.
Green capitalism, metabolism, the production of capitalist nature, and accumulation
for accumulation's sake
I use the term `green capitalism' to refer to a tightly woven mix of faith in nominally
free markets and market-based instruments, enclosures of various kinds, and capital
investment and entrepreneurial innovation, all aimed at redressing environmental
problems (however defined and measured). The actual term has been used by others
(eg Friedmann, 2005; Watts, 2002), but the substantive content of what I mean is
much more widely recognized and problematized by critical scholars. In the most
abstract rendering, green capitalism refers to the increasing incorporation and internalization of ecological conditions into the circuits of capital accumulation via the
production, commodification, and even real subsumption of nature (Boyd et al, 2001;
Kloppenburg, 2004; O'Connor, 1998; Prudham, 2005; Smith, 1984). This is attended by
forms of calculation, expertise, and environmental governance. But it also includes the
manner in which environmental politics become semiotically and ideologically tethered
to the reproduction of the conditions of accumulation, via what Smith 2008 [1984])
theorizes as the proliferation of the abstract second (produced) nature of exchange
value (see also O'Connor, 1993).
As such, green capitalism comes in many forms and, like the more general neoliberal turn of which it is one facet, has complex intellectual and political origins.
Under the rubric of green capitalism, for instance, should be included a widespread
turn in recent decades to so-called market-based mechanisms such as tradeable pollution permits. This approach is now becoming central in climate policy, particularly but
not only in the EU (Bailey, 2007a; 2007b; Bailey and Rupp, 2005) in the form of both
Pimping climate change
1597
state-coordinated and voluntary offset markets in carbon dioxide emissions (Bumpus
and Liverman, 2008). The intellectual foundation of market-based mechanisms, particularly tradable emissions or cap-and-trade systems, in one sense relies simply on the
argument that this is the most economically efficient (ie cheapest) way to achieve given
environmental quality objectives (for discussion see Ekins and Barker, 2001; Tietenberg,
1980). A closely related idea animates the neoclassical theory of the `backstop technology'. When full costs are paid, the argument goes, informed entrepreneurs will adjust to
(accurate) price signals by diverting investment away from environmentally damaging
technologies and toward more green technoeconomic strategies (Pearce and Turner,
1990; for critique of price as a measure of scarcity, see Norgaard, 1990).
But deeper foundations lie in an underlying faith in private decision making: thus,
the conservation ^ privatization connection articulated famously by Hardin (1968), and
before him (and more rigorously) by Gordon (1954). In turn, all of these draw on a
lineage of faith in `greed' (bolstered by strong, exclusive private property rights) as
socially desirable. For example, Malthus (1993 [1798]), in addition to his (in)famous
embrace of famine and disease as `natural' or what he called `preventive' checks on
population growth, also stated that:
``it appears, that a society constituted according to the most beautiful form that
imagination can conceive, with benevolence for its moving principle, instead of
self-love, and with every evil disposition in all its members corrected by reason
and not force, would, from the inevitable laws of nature, and not from any
original depravity of man [sic], in a very short period degenerate into a society
constructed upon a plan not essentially different from that which prevails in every
known state at present; I mean, a society divided into a class of proprietors,
and a class of labourers, and with self-love the main-spring of the great machine''
(Malthus, 1993 [1798], pages 64 ^ 65).
There is, of course, much more to be said about green capitalism, its origins, and a
proliferation of market fundamentalism in contemporary environmental policy making
(see eg Goldman, 2005; Heynen et al, 2007; Krueger and Gibbs, 2007; Liverman, 2004;
McAfee, 1999; Mansfield, 2004a; 2004b; 2007). But the point is that markets, more or
less accurate prices, enclosures of various kinds, a faith in the choices of ostensibly
independent and rational individuals, and investment of capital by innovative entrepreneurs constitute the ubiquitous tropes of green capitalism. A pithy but by no means
atypical endorsement of the green capitalist approach is encapsulated, for instance,
in the following Heritage Foundation energy policy statement:
``U.S. energy policy should be based on the creativity of free enterprise. Congress
and the Administration should rely on the private sector's research and development capabilities to deliver traditional supplies and viable new energy sources
rather than mandates, regulations, subsidies, and directed research.'' (1)
This kind of approach to environmental regulation has become emblematic of a
plethora of like-minded think tanks and lobby groups, particularly in the US. It is
consistent with a reinvigorated turn to the mix of utopian economic and political
doctrines of freedom that constitute the rhetorical and ideological core of neoliberalism (Harvey, 2005), and very consistent with a more general shift in recent decades
from `managerialism to entrepreneurialism' (Harvey, 1989) in social regulation. Green
capitalism thus reflects and reinforces transformations of governance, and specifically
environmental governance, with so-called command-and-control approaches giving
way to mechanisms such as ``eco-taxes, `best practices' environmental management,
green consumer activism, community-driven environmental regulation, and more
(1) http://www.heritage.org/about/lfa/energyandenvironment.cfm.
1598
S Prudham
collaborative models of environmental governance'' (Watts, 2002, page 1315). Markets,
privatization, commercialization, and outright commodification have become central
elements (as opposed to the objects) of environmental regulation, evident not only in
the prescriptions of neoliberal think tanks but also in those of a whole generation of
environmental NGOs and government policy makers (Bakker, 2005; Heynen et al,
2007; McCarthy and Prudham, 2004; Mansfield, 2007).
So, what does any of this have to do with Richard Branson? In some ways, everything. Despite the fact that the venerable BBC described Branson's September 2006
announcement as one in which he was pledging US $3 billion to `fight global warming',
this is not quite right. Branson did spin it this way, but the announcement specifically
targeted ``schemes to develop new renewable energy technologies'', and to divert profits
from Virgin Airlines and Virgin Trains into a financial arm of the Branson empire
called, appropriately enough, Virgin Fuels. Virgin Fuels, in turn, will use these funds
as part of its planned investments in the alternative energy sector, investments that
already include backing a California company called Cilion, making ethanol from
corn. This is very much consistent with the broader emergence of so-called `biofuels'
as an alternative to fossils, a strategy that is garnering considerable momentum thanks
to endorsements by the likes of Al Gore, and to widespread subsidies in the US and
elsewhere aimed at pulling farm crop cultivation into the circuits of biofuel production (on US subsidies see Koplow, 2007). It is consistent with Branson's declared
hope that biofuels can displace fossil fuels burned in conventional air and train travel
in the foreseeable future. This, too, is quintessentially green capitalism, a technical fix
for an ostensibly technical problem, propelled by an entrepreneur looking to sustain
profitability in the context of threats to existing markets.
But, if this is green capitalism, examining Branson's approach more closely points
to systematic problems with the green capitalist agenda. A supposed advantage of
biofuels is that they promise a less carbon-intensive fuel source for transportation
(and other energy-using activities) since they will drastically reduce net carbon emissions to the atmosphere when burned. The obvious reason for this is that the fuels
come from green plants which, in turn, assimilate carbon dioxide from the atmosphere
in their growth. While fossil fuel combustion transfers carbon from deep geological
storage into the atmosphere in the form of oxides of carbon, and contributes to an
enhanced greenhouse effect, biofuels offer a lower carbon alternative and the possibility of a zero net carbon flux to the atmosphere, provided the plants take up as much or
more carbon dioxide when they grow as is released by the biofuels when they burn.
Yet, there are elements of this strategy for offsetting carbon emissions which are
not ideal. One is simply that the scheme obscures or deflects attention from growth in
the airline industry and in airline travel per se. Substituting fuels amidst continued
growth in the industry means any ecological implications associated with the new fuel
cycle will be, all other things being equal, that much more pronounced. And, in the
case of biofuels, there are reasons to be concerned about the substitution of one set
of environmental problems for another as expansion in biofuels production offsets
current and growing demand for airline fuel. Only under highly restrictive and
unlikely conditions could the switch to renewable fuels actually be renewable in a
robust sense of the term. All of the energy generated from burning biofuels, including
efficiency and processing losses, would have to be offset by the production of energy
from photosynthesis in the feed crop. This includes all of the energy inputs in the
production process. It sounds feasible, intuitively doable, and eminently appealing,
but life-cycle assessments of intensive crop production regimes, whether for agriculture
or for energy production, consistently point to large inputs of energy in the cultivation,
harvesting, and conversion stages, sometimes by many factors more than the energy
Pimping climate change
1599
yielded by the final product (Bayliss-Smith, 1982; Netting, 1986). These inputs include,
for instance, fuel used for machinery in cultivation and processing, chemical inputs
such as fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides, etc.
Will all of these inputs, simultaneously, be converted to renewable sources along
with the fuel itself? It seems unlikely. For example, Pimentel and Patzek (2006) offer
some sobering numbers when it comes to one of the most commonly cited `solutions'
to the fossil fuel problem, the conversion of corn (either directly or from biomass
`waste') into ethanol. To start, all green plants in the United States take up in one
year through photosynthesis about the energy equivalent of half of current annual
energy consumption in the US. If the entire US corn crop were converted into ethanol,
it would offset a total of 6% of current US fossil fuel combustion, and that ignores the
fact that it takes 29% more energy to produce ethanol than is contained within it; for
cellulose technologies (from high-intensity wood fibre plantations), that number is 50%
using current technologies. That energy input has to come from someplace, and it
currently comes primarily from fossil fuels. In fact, the thermodynamics of converting
plant biomass to liquid fuels is sobering even using the fastest growing crops such as
acacia and eucalyptus (Patzek and Pimentel, 2005). So a substitution to nominally
renewable fuels can disguise important nonrenewable elements of renewable fuel cycles.
Moreover, the discourse of converting so-called agricultural `waste' (eg the unused
plant material in corn production) into biofuels ignores the implications of this diversion of nutrients out of ecosystems, which may subsidize short-term energy supplies
with long-term soil productivity (Patzek and Pimentel, 2005). In addition, there is a
suite of potentially negative repercussions of converting to biofuels on a large scale,
including the diversion of food crops into biofuel production, the appropriation of
human and nonhuman forest habitat to intensive and industrialized crop cultivation
regimes, and the production of particulate emissions from biofuel combustion itself.
These concerns are becoming increasingly evident, not least via a current international
food crisis whose origins, in substantial measure, lie in rising prices driven by competition for food grains between the food system and the biofuels industry. And they
point to the need to think in terms of complex chains of causation that rework socionatural relations across scales in the biofuel economy, connections that bring together
voracious energy demand (particularly in affluent countries), multinational capital,
states and international development institutions, local and regional dynamics of
deforestation, social marginalization and struggle, access to land, and food security
(Cooke, 2002; Dennis and Colfer, 2006; McMorrow and Talip, 2001; Wolford, 2004;
see also Monbiot, 2005).
I argue that these specific problems with the political ecology of biofuel substitution exemplify systematic challenges to the green capitalist agenda. Specifically, they
point to systematic ways in which biophysical nature is produced or metabolized in a
capitalist political economy. These particularities include growth dependence, but also
a tendency to continuously transform the relations and conditions of production (including, importantly, environmental conditions) propelled by the drive to accumulate capital
as an end in and of itselföwhat Marx called `accumulation for accumulation's sake'.
At issue here, in part, is that capitalism is a restless and growth-dependent political
economy. And, despite the immediacy of current anxieties surrounding climate change
and a host of other environmental problems linked to relentless economic growth and
transformation, the question as to whether capitalism can or cannot continue to grow
ad infinitum is arguably as old as capitalism itself. It is one of the defining questions
of classical political economy taken up variously by the likes of Adam Smith, David
Ricardo, and Thomas Malthus, all of whom were generally pessimistic about longrun raw material availability. By no means has this debate disappeared, and, in fact,
1600
S Prudham
it was reinvigorated by the emergence of an increasingly globalist environmentalism
in the 1960s and 1970s, and in the specific guise of a neo-Malthusian emphasis on the
population ^ environment nexus (see eg Ehrlich, 1968; Meadows and Club of Rome,
1972).
The question of whether or not capitalism is or can be sustainable has also
animated debates within the Marxist tradition, with, it must be said, no clear consensus (see eg Altvater, 1993; Benton, 1989; 1996; Leff, 1995; J O'Connor, 1998;
M O'Connor, 1994). A recent contribution to this line of thinking, picked up from
some of Marx's more obscure and scattered direct comments on the matter, come in
the guise of the notion of the metabolic rift. This idea is generating some considerable
popular and scholarly interest thanks primarily to the work of American sociologist
John Bellamy Foster (1999; 2000). But, as Foster clearly indicates, it comes from Marx,
who was inspired, in turn, by reading 19th-century agronomy and soil chemistry
literature. This includes the work of German chemist Justus von Liebig, who criticized
intensive agronomic practices as forms of robbery. Liebig is thought to be the inspiration for Marx's famous statement in volume 1 of Capital that ``all progress in capitalist
agriculture is a progress in the art, not only of robbing the worker, but of robbing the
soil'' (Marx, 1977, page 638).
The idea of a more systemic metabolic rift between capitalist society and the
nonhuman world is based in part on Marx's general notion that the social relation to
nature in all societies is essentially metabolic, meaning that there is a process of mutual
transformation between human and nonhuman nature through the transfer of matter
and energy. As he wrote in the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts: ``Nature is
man's [sic] inorganic bodyöthat is to say, nature insofar as it is not the human body.
Man lives from natureöie, nature is his bodyöand he must maintain a continuing
dialogue with it if he is not to die.'' (2)
For Foster (1999), Marx's comments on social metabolism combined with his
critique of capitalist agriculture underpin an argument for a more systemic metabolic
rift specific to and constitutive of capitalism. Having first traced the lineage of the
metabolism notion as it was picked up by the likes of Kautsky and Bukharin (but also
dropped, notably in the Soviet tradition), in his subsequent book Foster (2000) extends
the critique of capitalist agriculture into a more generalized critique of capitalist
nature. In their elaboration, Clark and York (2005, page 399) put it as follows:
``Capitalism is unable to maintain the conditions necessary for the recycling of
nutrients. In this capitalism creates a rift in our social metabolism with nature.
In fact, the development of capitalism continues to intensify the rift in agriculture
and creates rifts in other realms of the society ^ nature relationship, such as the
introduction of artificial fertilizers.''
In their words, drawing on Foster with a specific eye to theorizing global warming, the:
`` `metabolic rift' refers to an ecological rupture in the metabolism of a system. The
natural processes and cycles (such as the soil nutrient cycle) are interrupted.
The division between town and country is a particular geographical manifestation
of the metabolic rift, in regards to the soil nutrient cycle. But the essence of a
metabolic rift is the rupture or interruption of a natural system'' (page 399).
Considerable focus in Foster's work (and in that of Clark and York) is directed at
the debate over so-called `dematerialization'ö that is, the degree to which economic
growth and capitalism more generally can be `decoupled' from energy and material
throughput to a sufficient degree to make sustainable capitalism possible. This debate
has been central to the emergence of environmental sociology and the so-called
(2) Available
online at http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/labour.htm.
Pimping climate change
1601
`treadmill of production' theory. Scholars led by Schnaiberg (1980; Schnaiberg and
Gould, 1994) have challenged sanguine predictions, typically from economists and ecological modernization advocates, documenting that growth effects tend to swamp
efficiency effects with little evidence of any absolute decline in energy and material
requirements even in the most affluent national economies. Foster draws on the work
of 19th-century British political economist William Stanley Jevons in calling this an
example of the Jevons `paradox' (ie that increasing efficiencies can in some ways only
encourage increasing demand, but tend not to lead to decreasing amounts of throughput). The explanation for this apparent paradox, as Foster as well as Clark and York
argue, is the expanding scale of capitalism, founded, in turn, on the phenomenon of
growth or accumulation as ends in and of themselves (accumulation for accumulation's
sake) in the context of a prevailing metabolic rift.
The metabolic rift as a critique of green capitalism seems highly germane to the
case in hand since, as noted, Branson's announcements at best promise less carbonintensive development trajectories. Yet, to the extent that insight is to be drawn from
broadly Marxian perspectives on environmental change in a capitalist political economy, the record is mixed. On the one hand, there are those who see capitalism as `the
problem' a© la Foster or O'Connor and his second (ecological) contradiction argument
(1988; 1998), but, on the other, there are those of a more Promethean disposition (for
discussion see Foster, 1999; Goldman and Schurman, 2000). On this, Harvey notes
pointedly that ``It has ... proven hard to wean Marxism from a rather hubristic view
of the domination of nature thesis''; yet, he continues, ``in those rare instances when
Marxists have taken the material biological and physical conditions of existence
as foundational to their materialism, they have either lapsed into some form
of environmental determinism ... or into a damaging materialist pessimism'' (1996,
page 193).
Geographersöwhose cross is also to bear the legacy of environmental determinism
and the discipline's colonial history öof a generally Marxist uneven development bent
have tended to downplay strict and static notions of ecological `limits' in favor of the
dynamic production of new conditions, the constant revolutionizing of production
relations and conditions (Buck, 2007; Harvey, 1974; 1996), and, in this context, the
material and semiotic production of what is experienced as `nature' itself (Smith, 2008
[1984]).(3) It bears noting here too (2008 [1984) that much early political ecology
(influenced by and influential on geographical debates) eschewed simple-minded
neo-Malthusianism and the so-called `pressure of population on resources' hypothesis,
emphasizing instead unjust rights of resource access and control; contested meanings
and understandings; and the dynamics of commercialization and commodification
as key factors propelling environmental degradation (Blaikie and Brookfield, 1987;
Carney, 1993; Robbins, 2004; Turner, 1993; Watts, 1983). Limits, per se, were simply
no longer the question. As for nature itself, Smith (1996) summed it up rather nicely by
noting that `nature' as it is conventionally understood and talked about is not a very
relational and, therefore, Marxist category at all.
However, redefining the problem does not make the issue of `ecological limits' to
capitalism go away entirely. I strongly suspect (in fact, I know) that many critical
geographers simply cringe and look away when they see the phrase `ecological limits',
and many, I suspect, will have no truck with the notion of a systemic capitalist
metabolic rift more generally. Maybe they are right. Yet, in the context of various calls
to attend to the material action or `agency' of nonhuman beings and processes in our
geographical work (for syntheses see Bakker and Bridge, 2006; Braun, 2005), and as
(3) This
passage is also cited in Clark and York (2005, page 398).
1602
S Prudham
the distinct categories of nature and culture become dissolved in favour of hybrids,
assemblages, and socionatures (see eg Castree, 2003; Gandy, 2002; Kaika, 2005;
Latour, 1993; Swyngedouw, 1999; Whatmore, 2002), Harvey's challenge in Justice
Nature and the Geography of Difference remains noteworthy:
``What I am proposing is a way of depicting the fundamental physical and biological conditions and processes that work through all social, cultural, and
economic projects to create a tangible historical geography and to do it in such
a way as to not render those physical and biological elements as a banal and
passive background to human historical geography'' (1996, page 192).
There is a genuine dilemma here: what are we to make of this nonhuman matter
which constitutes our geographies? Harvey's observation remains: on one side is the
specter of a rigid, dualistic, and deterministic perspective on the nature ^ society or
nature ^ culture nexus. On the other, however, is potential complicity with laissez-faire
neoclassical optimism, and thus with the green capitalism school itself. One direction
to go in emphasizing dynamism, change, and the relentless production of new natures,
of course, is to abandon engagement with ecological conditions per se as a subset of
material conditions. But I think this is not necessary or wise, particularly for geographers. The danger is not one of bad theory but of not taking seriously enough the
material conditions of immiseration that characterize the lives of literally millions
(if not billions) of people in the contemporary world, and thus the socioecological
aspects of uneven development.
A way forward is to emphasize that the problem is not only a quantitative one, but
also a qualitative one. Indeed, as Neil Smith noted in Uneven Development (2008 [1984],
page 87): ``[C]apital, and the bourgeois society which nurtures it, usher in not just a
quantitative but also a qualitative change in the relation with nature.'' That is, the
metabolic rift originates not only from increasing total amounts of material and energy
throughput (as important as these flows may be), but also from the relentless and
chaotic transformation of relations and conditions of production (including ecological
conditions) in geographically specific ways.
In transforming and redefining material conditions and `limits', capitalism also
transforms, redefines, and produces new `socioecological' temporal and spatial scales
(Robbins and Fraser, 2003; Sayre, 2005). All that is solid may well melt into air. What
an interesting phrase in the context of the current discussion! Need we then consider
the complex constituents of newly produced air into which that which was previously
solid has now melted? How does it change the valence of this celebrated phrase if we
include, for instance, a proliferation of persistent organic pollutants volatized and
dispersed through the atmosphere, condensed disproportionately in colder climes,
and bioaccumulated in arctic and Antarctic food webs, to say nothing of the accumulation of greenhouse gases as driving forces in the changing composition of the
atmosphere? In the case at hand, a whole suite of political ecological relations is
caught up in and reworked in the emerging economy and geography of biofuels and
carbon offsets.
Returning again to the pages of Uneven Development, Smith (page 88) goes on to
note in a prescient reference to the implications of climate change that ``the industrial
production of carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere have had very
uncontrolled climatic effects ... [t]he most complete and elaborate of human productions, the capitalist system, is at the same time the most anarchic ... . The production
process is quite deliberate, but its immediate goal, profit, is reckoned in terms of
exchange-value, not use-value'' (emphasis added). Critically, where green capitalism is
concerned, this must include an account of the role of the entrepreneurial, bourgeois
subject propelling accumulation on an expanded scale. For Marx, one of the signature
Pimping climate change
1603
features of capitalism is the central figure presented by the capitalist, driven to expand
the scale and scope of accumulation as an end in and of itself. Marx offers the
following striking characterization of the phenomenon of accumulation for accumulation's sake, and its embodiment in the very identity of the archetypal capitalist (who,
it should be noted, Marx unfortunately makes uniquely male):
``in so far as he is capital personified, his motivating force is not the acquisition and
enjoyment of use-values, but the acquisition and augmentation of exchange-values.
He is fanatically intent on the valorization of value; consequently he ruthlessly
forces the human race to produce for production's sake. In this way he spurs on
the development of society's productive forces, and the material conditions of
production which alone can form the real basis of a higher form of society, a
society in which the full and free development of every individual forms the ruling
principle. Only as a personification of capital is the capitalist respectable. As such,
he shares with the miser an absolute drive toward self-enrichment. But what
appears in the miser as the mania of an individual is in the capitalist the effect of
a social mechanism in which he is merely a cog. Moreover, the development
of capitalist production makes it necessary constantly to increase the amount of
the capital laid out in a given industrial undertaking, and competition subordinates
every individual capitalist to the immanent laws of capitalist production, as external coercive laws. It compels him to keep extending his capital, so as to preserve it,
but extend by means of progressive accumulation'' (1977, page 729, emphasis added).
There is a lot to digest in this quote. For this discussion, I note four elements of the
passage. First, there is certainly at least a hint of the Prometheanism of Marx, his
sense that capitalism unleashes productive powers that will eventually lead to a `higher
form of society'. Second, however, the bourgeois subject propels the production of new
material conditions, among them new socionatures produced in, through, and even in
some cases for commodity production, such as genetically modified crops in agriculture. This dynamic underpins the production of first and second nature, as crucially
redefined by Smith (2008 [1984]), through material transformation but also, more
abstractly, through the proliferation of nature as exchange value (second nature). Third,
Marx observes that, while the bourgeois subject is defined by almost fanatically
eschewing self-gratification in use-values, this is somewhat of an imposed compulsion,
what Marx calls a `social mechanism'. As is made clear elsewhere in Capital (1977), this
compulsion originates in the need to expand the scale of production merely in order
to maintain a constant volume (not rate) of profit for any given individual capitalist;
in short, the capitalist must run to stay in place (see also Harvey, 1982).
There is, of course, much to be said on these topics. But, for the purposes of this
discussion, note finally that Marx makes the suggestive observation here that maintaining a nondeclining volume of profit (again, based on an expanding scale of
production) as capital personified is the only manner in which the bourgeois subject
is validated or made respectable, albeit in relation to a largely presumed wider social
and cultural field. In short, this is the capitalist's identity, compelled to expand even
if only to stay in place economically, but also compelled by a politics of cultural
recognition in a capitalist society that valorizes his or her social role only through the
`valorization of value'. But now this phrase must be understood in a double sense
as both the expansion of value through exploitation of commodified labor power in
production, and cultural value or worth attributed to the capitalist according to his or
her ability to oversee this exploitation.
If correct, this portrait of the bourgeois entrepreneurial subject presents a sobering
problem for green capitalism. If capitalism produces all manner of potentially progressive and liberating technologies and conditions of production (as seems to be
1604
S Prudham
the case), it also produces these according to a logic driven not by meeting those needs
per se, but by the anarchic dynamics of accumulation for accumulation's sake, in turn
driven by a nihilistic bourgeois subject whose claim to fame is accumulation in and of
itself, and, moreover, whose ability to merely reproduce himself or herself is predicated
on accumulation on an ever expanding scale. While a market-centered discourse of
environmentalism fixates on the most efficient ways to meet given environmental
targets, it ignores the systemic production of new environmental problems (new
natures) for which there may be no social regulation and no targets, and which leaves
unchallenged a political economy whose mantra is growth as an end in itself.
If growth may be required to lift millions if not billions out of grinding poverty,
growth in a capitalist economy is fuelled not by meeting human needs per se, but by
accumulation for accumulation's sake, and, with it, not just expansion, but anarchic
transformation, of social relations, of technology, and of biophysical nature. This
systematically violates any robust version of the precautionary principle, interpreted
generally as `do no harm', since it places society in a position of reacting ex ante to
the changing character of produced nature. To be clear, this is not to say that all
forms of socionatural change produced through accumulation for accumulation's
sake are necessarily destructive or undesirable. Rather, it is to say that the production of socionature, under green capitalism, is subordinated to the will of the
entrepreneur whose ethos is accumulation as an end in itself. Historical examples
of the phenomenon may include numerous beneficial technologies, but they also
include the development of a range of new chemicals for applications in agriculture,
industrial processes, and consumer goods, not least in the form of synthetic organics
and hybrid organic/inorganic chemicals such as polychlorinated and polybrominated biphenyls (Colborn et al, 1996). Rachel Carson (1994) made these the focus
of her life's work. Polychlorinated biphenyls, first manufactured commercially by
one of the parent companies of what became Monsanto, are perhaps the poster child
of the phenomenon, a boon across a range of industrial and commercial applications,
but also at the heart of an almost unparalleled toxic legacy whose implications
continue to unfold. Moreover, and this is the main point I am trying to emphasize
here, these and other chemicals are the direct products of innovative capital striving
to make use of its formerly wasted by-products in the absence of knowledge about or
regulation of the effects of introducing new substances into commodity circulation,
food chains, and the environment more generally. If this is a seldom celebrated form
of `industrial ecology', it is also quintessentially green capitalism. I am generally in
agreement with and informed by O'Connor (1998) on capitalism's second, ecological,
contradiction here except that I am emphasizing not only the underproduction of
the (ecological) conditions of reproduction, but also the systemic production of new
ecological conditions that may be (and, indeed, have been) highly destructive to
human and nonhuman life. To advocate the desirability of such outcomes or a faith
in the social foundations of their genesis, as green capitalism requires, seems rather
perverse indeed.
The Branson case actually epitomizes and encapsulates this rather well. Here,
a private entrepreneur proposes to invest money from companies he controls into
new, private, profit-seeking ventures which ostensibly redress an existing set of environmental dilemmas (ie climate-change-inducing effects of fossil fuel combustion) by
introducing a new set of fuels for profit-driven transportation services and an attendant
set of new environmental problems, many as yet unspecified or not well known. Hardly
an example of the harnessing of capital to the green cause, Branson's announcement
from this perspective exemplifies many of the reasons to be concerned with the very
possibility of or limits to a `green capitalism'.
Pimping climate change
1605
Green capitalism as performance
Green capitalism relies on the role of the entrepreneurial bourgeois subject as a
price-guided innovator propelling more environmentally friendly technoeconomic
development. But the success of green capitalism and the central role of the entrepreneur rests on more than the `objective' (quantitative and qualitative) characteristics
of resulting produced natures. Rather, green capitalism must also be accepted as
legitimate. In order for this to happen, the entrepreneur must be seen öin political
and cultural terms öto be an architect of, rather than an obstacle to, a greener future.
On the one hand, this wider social sanction is consistent with the existing status of
entrepreneurs as elites through the cultural worth and politics of recognition ascribed
to accumulation for its own sake, as indicated by Marx in the extended quote above.
But, on the other hand, it requires both extension and qualification of the scope of the
entrepreneur's expertise into matters pertaining to environmental change. Specifically,
accumulation as an end in itself is no longer (if it ever really was) adequate; rather, the
viability of investment schemes, and with them the legitimacy of the green entrepreneur, turns on the realization of value in a market, which requires some form of social
sanction (formal or otherwise) of the commodities produced by green capitalists. How
a politics of worth articulates with commodities in the circulation and realization of
value is a complex matter indeed (see eg Henderson, 2004; Sayer, 2003). But, for green
capitalism to `work', environmentalism and capitalism must be understood not as
antagonisms but, rather, as a combatable fusion embodied in technoeconomic
trajectories, as well as in the figure of the bourgeois subject himself or herself.
In some ways, this curious combination is the most remarkable feature of green
capitalism as a cultural logic. There are parallels here between green capitalism and
aspects of what have come to be called `neoliberalism'. I have contributed previously to
arguments that the reworking of long-standing political and economic variants of
liberalism in relation to socionatural relations, the politics of environmental change,
and environmentalism is constitutive of what we have come to understand as neoliberalism (Heynen et al, 2007; McCarthy and Prudham, 2004). But therein lies
something of the problem. Both analytically and politically, we must attend to the
specific ways in which what we understand to be the `core' of neoliberalism comes to
articulate with such disparate projects and outcomes, and how it is that political
subjectivities are reworked in ways that undermine any sense that neoliberalism is
simply something that `they' are doing to `us' (Larner, 2003). The alternative is to
treat these combinations and permutations as self-evident manifestations of an allencompassing neoliberalism without ever bothering to even seek explanation for how
`it' happened. As Larner (2000)ödrawing on Hall (1988)öcorrectly observed, this is
exactly a problem of hegemony, and thus of exploring how what would seem in some
ways odd or counterintuitive comes (eventually) to seem normal and even common
sense. This requires engaging in some understanding of the politics of legitimacy,
to see how it is that particular discursive formations, institutional arrangements, social
movements, actors, and material practices come to constitute the terrain of consent.
Thinking along similar lines, Brown examines the relationship between neoliberalism and neoconservatism, (2006, page 692) and asks how it is that neoliberal
capitalism as ``a rationality that is expressly amoral at the level of both ends and
means'' can be made to articulate and combine with one ``that is expressly moral
and regulatory'' (ie neoconservatism). The same question pertains to green capitalism.
How is it that the entrepreneurial subject, the capitalist, comes to have the foundation
of his or her elite status extended beyond the scope of accumulation as an inherent
good, so that expanded rounds of capital accumulation and social decision making
led in significant measure by the entrepreneur comes to constitute a pivotal part of the
1606
S Prudham
solution in meeting the challenges of environmental change and environmentalism?
This is a political problem for the would-be green capitalist such as Branson; it is
also a question for critics of green capitalism to grapple with, more so perhaps than
has been the case to date. Obviously, this is a complex question. Yet, as in Brown's
analysis, it points to the need to understand the reworking of political rationalities in
relation to state and society, in this context focusing on how a cultural politics of the
green entrepreneurial subject comes to have coherence. And I argue that part of
the answer lies in examining the ways in which `performances' help to embody
and thereby actively construct a fusion of ostensibly disparate political and cultural
agendas. In this framing, Branson's announcements and actions do `work' through the
performance of green capitalism.
Here, I draw on notions of subjectivity and identity emphasizing the performances
of individual subjects through which powerful norms of social behavior are reproduced
and embodied. This notion draws primarily on the work of Butler (1990), whose
concern has been to explain the regulation and propagation of prevailing norms of
cultural identity and behavior in realms such as sexuality, class, and race. According to
Butler, the reproduction of such norms is secured in part through their being enacted
and embodied by discrete performances of subjects. Crucially, such performances not
only cite and reproduce prevailing norms, but at the same time offer the potential to
creatively modify and subvert norms through variations in the specific manner in
which they are enacted and in the particular sociospatial and temporal contexts for
discrete performances. As Nash notes, ``For Butler the concept of performativity is an
attempt to find a more embodied way of rethinking the relationships between determining social structures and personal agency. Rather than either essentialist genders
located in bodily difference or a kind of free-floating, fluid choice of gender identity,
Butler suggests that women and men learn to perform the sedimented forms of
gendered social practices that become so routinized as to appear natural'' (2000,
pages 654 ^ 655). These norms can, indeed, become so powerful that they become
reified as essential material forms independent of their cultural productions. As this
happens, identities and subjectivities come to be viewed as pure, stable abstractions
rather than embodied performances constituted in part by specific material practices
which sustain their coherence (for review and critique see McDowell, 1999; McDowell
and Court, 1994; Pratt, 2004). Yet, for Butler, this coherence is always unstable, on the
one hand making necessary iterative performances, and on the other hand rendering
norms available for subversion (intentional or otherwise), transformation, and critical
interrogation.
As Nash goes on to note, while Butler has been concerned, in particular, with
norms of gender and (hetero)sexuality, the notion of performance may be used productively to examine all manner of normalized, regulated, but also embodied and
iterative subjectivities. McDowell and Court (1994) focus, for example, on gendered
norms in the workplace performances of men and women in the world of banking and
finance. Similarly, and more germane to the notion of Branson's announcements as
performances of green capitalism, Thrift (2001) has discussed the performative dimensions of a supposedly new economy whose stability relies on its narrative repetition as
well as on its embodied citation by managerial classes of capital. These performances
help make self-evident what is meant by the phrase `new economy', and what behavioral norms are consistent with it. In a separate work (Thrift, 2000), he articulates a
view of how speed, agility, rapid adaptation, and other hallmark features of the
permanent state of emergency in which contemporary capitalist firms exist are performed not only by managers in such firms, but also within the broader spatial spheres
in which they perform.
Pimping climate change
1607
I find this idea of norms performed iteratively through embodied social practice
productive (in more ways than one) in thinking about and coming to critical terms
with Branson as a would-be green entrepreneurial activist. Branson occupies a singular
political and cultural niche as an almost self-appointed archetype of the post-Thatcherite
capitalist, independent, entrepreneurial, mercurial, innovative, and most definitely a
celebrity. To whatever degree Branson wilfully seeks to convey and affect these meanings, there can be little doubt of his association with them. His emergence as a
successful if not iconic entrepreneur originated in his sales of recorded music at
discount prices during the late 1960s and early 1970s under the name of Virgin, leading
to his eventual founding of Virgin Records. Branson diversified into the transportation
sector in 1984 with the launch of Virgin Atlantic Airways, seeking to compete with the
more established (and stodgy) British Airways. This was followed in 1997 by the launch
of Virgin Trains, Branson's attempt to capitalize on the dismantling and privatization of
British Rail. He has consistently sought to draw attention to himself and his companies
with splashy business launches, highly personalized feuds with competitors (notably
British Airways), and heavily publicized long-distance adventures by boat and balloon.
These latter seemingly bear little direct relation to his businesses beyond free publicity
for Virgin; yet, they speak volumes about Branson's brand of entrepreneurial performance as heroic, splashy, highly public, mercurial, and (in significant ways) even
macho fusions of adventure and business. Branson's public persona is one of dashing,
daring ambition and a wilful courtship with controversy, masculinized and often
(hetero)sexualized in over-the-top ways. Metaphorically, Branson's escapades, including, for instance, his risky adventures aboard boats and balloons, seem self-consciously
intended to draw attention to and underwrite the need for acumen, panache, and a
spirit of conquest in business (ad)ventures embodied in the heroic male entrepreneurial
subject.
And his attention-seeking ways have worked. Courted by the British Conservatives
and Third Way Labour alike, Branson was actually knighted in 1999 for `service to
entrepreneurship' (BBC News 2004). In this context, and particularly in post-Thatcherera Britain, Branson has come to embody the ideal of the British, but increasingly
transnational, neoliberal capitalist subject. He is the singular icon of the new British
business class, reinvigorated, lean, able to compete not only with Britain's older
generation of corporatist (both business and state) establishment, but, equally, with
the new, ostensibly less staid international capitalist class. He is, in this context,
a national (and nationalist) figure, named by BBC news readers as Britain's top
entrepreneur in 2003 by a whopping 57% of 15 000 voters in an online poll (the
second-highest vote getter garnered 17% support). And, yet, he is also a transnational
celebrity entrepreneur, made evident in part by his choice of Washington DC for the
September 2006 announcement and by his choice of accompaniment in Bill Clinton.
Some might argue that Branson's singular, mercurial persona is inconsistent with
the focus in the literature on everyday, even mundane performances of gender, class,
and racial norms (indeed, this point has been raised in response to multiple presentations of this paper before academic audiences). Yet, despite Branson's apparent
singularity, I would argue he cites and performs an already-existing, virulent, muscular
neoliberal, masculinist subjectivity reworked to fit the green capitalist agenda. The
highly stylized dimensions of Branson's performed persona constitute one part of his
`symbolic capital' by definition expressed in relation to existing discursive norms and
expectations (Bourdieu, 1984). As such, Branson's status and `distinction' were always
already more than what could be captured by the strictly financial foundations of his
fame. It is important to remember here that, for Butler, performance points to the
need for prevailing discursive norms to be embodied in actions, gestures, and the like
1608
S Prudham
through everyday repetitions that, via their very repetition in specific circumstances by
particular bodies, become open to subversion in unpredictable and sometimes creative
ways. It is through performance that not only structure but also agency come together,
in bodies always in a state of being produced (Wright, 2006). Such productions not
only are themselves effects, but also have effects. Branson, in this context, both signifies the hybridization of environmentalism and capitalism, and is a vector of this
hybridization. I see it as entirely consistent then to argue that Branson performs green
capitalism in part through creatively fusing environmentalism and entrepreneurialism.
To emphasize, this is not to say that Branson creates or single-handedly authors
the notion of green capitalism, nor that he alone performs the green entrepreneur;
he clearly does not. Branson's persona, carefully cultivated though it may be, exists in
relation to already existing, taken-for-granted notions of the entrepreneur as cultural
elite in a more-than capitalist society. Moreover, if Branson is in some ways the
paradigmatic example of the heroic (masculine?) neoliberal subject, individually freed
from the shackles of excessive government to choose his path, this is not the same as
saying he is the sole source of this powerful narrative of neoliberal political rationality
(Guthman and DuPuis, 2006). Similarly, he builds on, as much as authors, an established narrative foundation for green capitalism. Yet, it equally flies in the face of his
obvious fame to argue that Branson is merely mundane. In this sense, Branson pimps
`climate' by doing some of the cultural work necessary to fuse capitalism and environmentalism. I do not use the term `pimp' lightly here. Rather, I chose it to convey
exactly the sense of sensationalism and self-promotion, but also exploitation, and, in
the spirit of Butler's gendered theorization of performance, a virile form of masculine
display.
Conclusion
Obviously, this paper is only somewhat about Richard Branson. I am no fan to be sure,
but that does not matter. What I have tried to do is to use Branson's splashy announcements in September of 2006, and in February 2007, along with related press (print and
electronic media) coverage in order to think through ecological contradictions and the
cultural politics of green capitalism. I have argued that the metabolism school offers a
powerful critique of green capitalism's prescriptions by taking some of the stuffing out
of the notion that capitalism can, in fact, be green. But I have also argued that a
theory of the metabolism of capitalist nature must come to terms with the qualitative
and cultural politics of socionatures produced via the restless dynamism of capital
accumulation pursued as an end in itself. This requires understanding something of
what Marx meant by accumulation for accumulation's sake, and what that might mean
for contemporary environmental change and environmental politics. However, I have
also argued that attending to the cultural politics of green capitalism should include
some assessment of the cultural work required to fuse these potentially disparate
political rationalities, drawing attention to the potential importance of Branson's
announcements as performances. Such performances, admittedly some higher profile
than others, are required in order to secure the legitimacy of green capitalism as a
political project. It follows that our theories of green capitalism, capitalist nature,
ecological contradictions of capitalism, the various facets of a distinctly capitalist
metabolism, and the like should not fail to appraise the significance of performances
as cultural and political work which is necessary for environmentalism and capitalism
to be successfully fused. The need for critical appraisals of green capitalist prescriptions has become all the more important in the intervening period since Branson's
announcements, given emerging critiques of the political ecology of biofuels, and
increasing recognition that consumerism, an economy of greed, and profound social
Pimping climate change
1609
inequality across multiple scales are inextricably bound up in the problems of climate
change and global warming.
Some people will react to this paper (and, indeed, already have!) by arguing that
it is unrealistic, and that the world is a better place since Richard Branson pledged
action on climate change. I am not immune to this critique. I was visiting the UK
during an academic sabbatical at the time of Branson's first announcement, and one
thing that struck me is that it would be difficult to imagine a prominent North
American entrepreneur making a similar commitment to climate change in part
because the level of consciousness raising and awareness about climate change as an
issue in the lives of everyday people in the UK seems (at least to me, and as of this
writing) much higher. There may, in fact, be an argument to be made here that
Branson represents something of a rearguard action born of panic in the face of
impending social regulation of the airline industry, and, moreover, that it is actually
capitalism that is being forced to adapt to environmentalism, not the other way
around. Clearly, green capitalism makes for hybrid politics, and I do not wish to
suggest otherwise.
Still, amidst a proliferation of celebrity environmentalists (many rich though not all
entrepreneurs) as well as some high-profile business elites turned philanthropists in
recent years (eg Bill Gates, Warren Buffett), there is a need to consider the character of
the environmental and social changes that can and cannot be championed by these
people. Contacted to comment again on the second of Branson's announcements
(the prize for sequestering carbon) Friends of the Earth spokesperson Tony Jupiter
reminded observers of this:
``many of the ways of tackling climate change, such as energy efficiency and renewables, already exist, and it is essential that these are implemented as soon
as possible. We cannot afford to wait for futuristic solutions which may never
materialise. Sir Richard must also look at his business activities and the contribution they make to climate change. The world will find it very difficult to tackle
climate change if air travel continues to expand and space tourism is developed''
(The Guardian 2007).
Clearly, then, I cannot pretend to be the only person who has issues with Sir
Richard's interventions on climate change, and if I have made it seem the case that
has also not been my intention. Rather, my intention has been to work through some
of what it means for celebrity entrepreneurs to attach themselves to environmentalism, and, by extension, some of what is at stake in the notion of a green capitalism.
This is in the spirit of refusing to content ourselves with asking whether or not we are
environmentalists, but asking instead what kind of environmentalism öprocedural and
substantiveöwe wish to practice.
Acknowledgements. This paper was initiated while I was a visiting scholar in the Environmental
Change Institute at the University of Oxford. I would like to acknowledge the stimulating community of scholars and students there who helped inspire me to write this paper, and who helped me
think it through. Special thanks to Diana Liverman, Emily Boyd, Emma Tompkins, Max Boykoff,
Timmons Roberts, Maria Carmen Lemos, Dan Buck, and the participants in the James Martin
climate seminar at Oxford in 2006 ^ 07. Thanks also to Alana Boland, Matt Farish, James
McCarthy, Katharine Rankin, Jamie Peck, Rachel Silvey, Neil Smith, and three anonymous
referees for feedback on an earlier draft. I also benefited from feedback on the paper from an
audience at the Ohio State University Department of Geography colloquium, particularly Matt
Coleman, Kevin Cox, Becky Mansfield, and Joel Wainwright. All remaining ambiguities and errors
are mine.
1610
S Prudham
References
Altvater E, 1993 The Future of the Market: An Essay on the Regulation of Money and Nature after
the Collapse of `Actually Existing Socialism' (Verso, London)
Bailey I, 2007a, ``Market environmentalism, new environmental policy instruments, and climate
policy in the United Kingdom and Germany''Annals of the Association of American Geographers
97 530 ^ 550
Bailey I, 2007b,``Neoliberalism, climate governance and the scalar politics of EU emissions trading''
Area 39 431 ^442
Bailey I, Rupp S, 2005, ``Geography and climate policy: a comparative assessment of new
environmental policy instruments in the UK and Germany'' Geoforum 36 387 ^ 401
Bakker K, 2005, ``Neoliberalizing nature? Market environmentalism in water supply in England
and Wales'' Annals of the Association of American Geographers 95 542 ^ 565
Bakker K, Bridge G, 2006, ``Material worlds? Resource geographies and the `matter of nature' ''
Progress in Human Geography 30 5 ^ 27
Bayliss-Smith T P, 1982 The Ecology of Agricultural Systems (Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge)
BBC News 2004, ``Profile: Richard Branson'', 27 September, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk news/
3693588.stm
BBC News 2006, ``Branson makes $3bn climate pledge'', 21 September, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/
hi/business/5368194.stm
Benton T, 1989, ``Marxism and natural limits: an ecological critique and reconstruction'' New Left
Review number 178 51 ^ 58
Benton T (Ed.), 1996 The Greening of Marxism (Guilford Press, New York)
Blaikie P M, Brookfield H C, 1987 Land Degradation and Society (Methuen, London)
Bourdieu P, 1984 Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste (Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA)
Boyd W, S, Prudham S, Schurman R, 2001, ``Industrial dynamics and the problem of nature''
Society and Natural Resources 14 555 ^ 570
Boykoff M T, Goodman M, 2008,``Conspicuous redemption? Reflections on the promises and perils
of the `celebritization' of climate change'' Geoforum (in press), doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2008.04.006
Braun B, 2005, ``Environmental issues: writing a more-than-human urban geography'' Progress in
Human Geography 29 635 ^ 650
Brown W, 2006, ``American nightmare: neoliberalism, neoconservatism, and de-democratization''
Political Theory 34 690 ^ 714
Buck D, 2007, ``The ecological question: can capitalism prevail?'', in Coming to Terms with Nature:
Socialist Register 2007 Eds L Panitch, C Leys (Monthly Review Press, London) pp 60 ^ 71
Bumpus A G, Liverman D, 2008, ``Accumulation by decarbonization and the governance of
carbon offsets'' Economic Geography 84 127 ^ 155
Butler J, 1990 Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (Routledge, New York)
Carney J, 1993, ``Converting the wetlands, engendering the environment: the intersection of gender
with agrarian change in the Gambia'' Economic Geography 69 329 ^ 348
Carson R, 1994 Silent Spring (Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA)
Castree N, 2003, ``Environmental issues: relational ontologies and hybrid politics'' Progress in
Human Geography 27 203 ^ 211
Clark B, York R, 2005, ``Carbon metabolism: global capitalism, climate change, and the biospheric
rift'' Theory and Society 34 391 ^ 428
Colborn T, Dumanoski D, Myers J P, 1996 Our Stolen Future (Dutton, New York)
Cooke F M, 2002, ``Vulnerability, control and oil palm in Sarawak: globalization and a new era?''
Development and Change 33 189 ^ 211
Dennis R A, Colfer C P, 2006, ``Impacts of land use and fire on the loss and degradation of lowland
forest in 1983 ^ 2000 in East Kutai District, East Kalimantan, Indonesia'' Singapore Journal of
Tropical Geography 27(1) 30 ^ 48
Ehrlich P R, 1968 The Population Bomb (Ballantine Books, New York)
Ekins P, Barker T, 2001, ``Carbon taxes and carbon emissions trading'' Journal of Economic Surveys
15 325 ^ 376
Foster J B, 1999,``Marx's theory of metabolic rift: classical foundations for environmental sociology''
American Journal of Sociology 105 366 ^ 405
Foster J B, 2000 Marx's Ecology: Materialism and Nature (Monthly Review Press, New York)
Friedmann H, 2005, ``From colonialism to green capitalism: social movements and emergence of
food regimes'' Research in Rural Sociology and Development 11 227 ^ 264
Pimping climate change
1611
Gajda A, Kieffer S W, 2007,``Celebrity meets science: Hollywood's environmentalism and its effect''
Geological Society of America Today October, 44 ^ 45
Gandy M, 2002 Concrete and Clay: Reworking Nature in NewYork City (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)
Goldman M, 2005 Imperial Nature: The World Bank and Struggles for Social Justice in the Age
of Globalization (Yale University Press, New Haven, CT)
Goldman M, Schurman R, 2000, ``Closing the great divide: new social theory on society and
nature'' Annual Review of Sociology 26 563 ^ 584
Gordon H S, 1954, ``The economic theory of a common property resource: the fishery'' Journal
of Political Economy 62 124 ^ 142
Griscom Little A, 2008, ``The Environmental Defense Fund's Fredd Krupp on the best capitalist
climate solutions'' Wired Magazine 25 February
Guthman J, DuPuis E M, 2006,``Embodying neoliberalism: economy, culture, and the politics of fat''
Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 24 427 ^ 448
Hall S, 1988, ``The toad in the garden: Thatcherism among the theorists'', in Marxism and the
Interpretation of Culture Eds C Nelson C, L Grossberg (University of Illinois Press, Chicago, IL)
pp 35 ^ 57
Haraway D J, 1997 Modest [email protected] Millennium. FemaleManß Meets Oncomouse 2:
Feminism and Technoscience (Routledge, New York)
Hardin G, 1968, ``The tragedy of the commons'' Science 162 1243 ^ 1248
Harvey D, 1974, ``Population, resources and the ideology of science'' Economic Geography
50 256 ^ 277
Harvey D, 1982 The Limits to Capital (Blackwell, Oxford)
Harvey D, 1989, ``From managerialism to entrepeneurialism: the transformation in urban
governance in late capitalism'' Geografiska Annaler, Series B 71(1) 3 ^ 18
Harvey D, 1996 Justice, Nature, and the Geography of Difference (Blackwell, Malden, MA)
Harvey D, 2005 A Brief History of Neoliberalism (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
Henderson G, 2004, `` `Free' food, the local production of worth, and the circuit of
decommodification: a value theory of the surplus'' Environment and Planning D: Society and
Space 22 485 ^ 512
Heynen N C, McCarthy J, Prudham S, Robbins P (Eds), 2007 Neoliberal Environments: False
Promises and Unnatural Consequences (Routledge, London)
Kaika M, 2005 City of Flows: Modernity, Nature, and the City (Routledge, New York)
Kloppenburg J R, 2004 First the Seed: The Political Economy of Plant Biotechnology 2nd edition
(University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI)
Koplow D, 2007 Biofuels: At What Cost? Government Support for Ethanol and Biodiesel in the
United States: 2007 Update Global Subsidies Initiative, Geneva,
http://www.globalsubsidies.org/files/assets/Brochure - US Update.pdf
Krueger R, Gibbs D, 2007 The Sustainable Development Paradox: Urban Political Economy in the
United States and Europe (Guilford Press, New York)
Larner W, 2000, ``Neo-liberalism: policy, ideology, governmentality'' Studies in Political Economy
63 (Autumn) 5 ^ 26
Larner W, 2003, ``Neoliberalism?'' Environment And Planning D: Society and Space 21 509 ^ 512
Latour, 1993 We Have Never Been Modern (Harvester Wheatsheaf, Brighton, Sussex)
Leff E, 1995 Green Production: Toward an Environmental Rationality (Guilford Press, New York)
Liverman D, 2004, ``Who governs, at what scale and at what price? Geography, environmental
governance, and the commodification of nature'' Annals of the Association of American
Geographers 94 734 ^ 738
McAfee K, 1999, ``Selling nature to save it? Biodiversity and green developmentalism'' Environment
and Planning D: Society and Space 17 133 ^ 154
McCarthy J, Prudham S, 2004, ``Neoliberal nature and the nature of neoliberalism'' Geoforum
35 275 ^ 283
McDowell L, 1999 Gender, Identity and Place: Understanding Feminist Geographies (Polity Press,
Cambridge)
McDowell L, Court J, 1994, ``Performing work: bodily representations in merchant banks''
Environment And Planning D: Society and Space 12 727 ^ 750
McMorrow J, Talip M A, 2001, ``Decline of forest area in Sabah, Malaysia: relationship to state
policies, land code and land capability'' Global Environmental Change: Human and Policy
Dimensions 11 217 ^ 230
Malthus T R, 1993 An Essay on the Principle of Population Ed. G Gilbert (Oxford University
Press, Oxford)
1612
S Prudham
Mansfield B, 2004a, ``Neoliberalism in the oceans: `rationalization', property rights, and the
commons question'' Geoforum 35 313 ^ 326
Mansfield B, 2004b, ``Rules of privatization: contradictions in neoliberal regulation of North
Pacific fisheries'' Annals of the Association of American Geographers 94 565 ^ 584
Mansfield B, 2007, ``Privatization: property and the remaking of nature ^ society relations''Antipode
39 393 ^ 405
Marx K, 1977 Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume 1 (Vintage, New York)
Meadows D H, Club of Rome, 1972 The Limits to Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome's Project
on the Predicament of Mankind (Universe Books, New York)
Monbiot G, 2005, ``Worse than fossil fuel'', http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/12/06/
worse-than-fossil-fuel
Nash C, 2000, ``Performativity in practice: some recent work in cultural geography'' Progress in
Human Geography 24 653 ^ 664
Netting R M, 1986 Cultural Ecology 2nd edition (Waveland Press, Prospect Heights, IL)
Norgaard R, 1990, ``Economic indicators of resource scarcity: a critical essay'' Journal of
Environmental Economics and Management 18 19 ^ 25
O'Connor J, 1988, ``Capitalism, nature, socialism: a theoretical introduction'' Capitalism, Nature,
Socialism 1(1) 11 ^ 38
O'Connor J, 1998 Natural Causes: Essays in Ecological Marxism (Guilford Press, New York)
O'Connor M, 1993, ``On the misadventures of capitalist nature'' Capitalism, Nature, Socialism 4
7 ^ 40
O'Connor M (Ed.), 1994 Is Capitalism Sustainable?: Political Economy and the Politics of Ecology
(Guilford Press, New York)
Parks B C, Roberts J T, 2006, ``Globalization, vulnerability to climate change, and perceived
injustice'' Society and Natural Resources 19 337 ^ 355
Patzek T W, Pimentel D, 2005, ``Thermodynamics of energy production from biomass'' Critical
Reviews in Plant Sciences 24 327 ^ 364
Pearce D W, Turner R K, 1990 Economics of Natural Resources and the Environment (Johns Hopkins
University Press, Baltimore, MD)
Pimentel D, Patzek T W, 2006, ``Editorial: Green plants, fossil fuels, and now biofuels'' Bioscience
56 875
Pratt G, 2004 Working Feminism (Temple University Press, Philadelphia, PA)
Prudham W S, 2005 Knock on Wood: Nature as Commodity in Douglas-fir Country (Routledge,
New York)
Robbins P, 2004 Political Ecology: A Critical Introduction (Blackwell, Malden, MA)
Robbins P, Fraser A, 2003, ``A forest of contradictions: producing the landscapes of the Scottish
Highlands'' Antipode 35 95 ^ 118
Roberts J T, 2001,``Global inequality and climate change'' Society and Natural Resources 14 501 ^ 509
Sayer A, 2003, ``(De)commodification, consumer culture, and moral economy'' Environment and
Planning D: Society and Space 21 341 ^ 357
Sayre N, 2005, ``Ecological and geographical scale: parallels and potential for integration'' Progress
in Human Geography 29 276 ^ 290
Schnaiberg A, 1980 The Environment, from Surplus to Scarcity (Oxford University Press, New York)
Schnaiberg A, Gould K A, 1994 Environment and Society: The Enduring Conflict (St Martin's
Press, New York)
Smith N, 2008 [1984] Uneven Development: Nature, Capital, and the Production of Space 3rd edition
(University of Georgia Press, Athens, GA)
Smith N, 1996, ``The production of nature'', in Future/Natural: Nature/Science/Culture
Eds G Robertson, M Mash, L Tickner, J Bird, B Curtis, T Putnam (Routledge, London)
pp 33 ^ 54
Swyngedouw E, 1999, ``Modernity and hybridity: nature, regeneracionismo, and the production
of the Spanish waterscape, 1890 ^ 1930'' Annals of the Association of American Geographers
89 443 ^ 465
The Guardian 2007, ``Virgin boss offers $25m reward to save Earth'', 9 February
Thrift N, 2000, ``Performing cultures in the new economy'' Annals of the Association of American
Geographers 90 674 ^ 692
Thrift N, 2001, `` `It's the romance, not the finance, that makes the business worth pursuing':
disclosing a new market culture'' Economy and Society 30 412 ^ 432
Tietenberg T H, 1980, ``Transferable discharge permits and the control of stationary source air
pollution: a survey and synthesis'' Land Economics 56 391 ^ 416
Pimping climate change
1613
Turner M D, 1993, ``Overstocking the range: a critical analysis of the environmental science of
Sahelian pastoralism'' Economic Geography 69 402 ^ 421
Watts M, 1983 Silent Violence: Food, Famine, and Peasantry in Northern Nigeria (University of
California Press, Berkeley, CA)
Watts M, 2002, ``Green capitalism, green governmentality'' American Behavioral Scientist 45
1313 ^ 1317
Whatmore S, 2002 Hybrid Geographies: Natures, Cultures, Spaces (Sage, Newbury Park, CA)
Wolford W, 2004, ``Of land and labor: agrarian reform on the sugarcane plantations of
Northeast Brazil'' Latin American Research Review 31 147 ^ 170
Wright M W, 2006 Disposable Women and Other Myths of Global Capitalism (Routledge, New York)
ß 2009 Pion Ltd and its Licensors
Conditions of use. This article may be downloaded from the E&P website for personal research
by members of subscribing organisations. This PDF may not be placed on any website (or other
online distribution system) without permission of the publisher.